Court audit: indigency verification failing

An audit released today indicates that district courts across Massachusetts have largely failed to ensure that residents represented by public defenders are poor enough to qualify for free or sharply reduced cost legal representation, State House News Service reported.

The state auditor’s office examined records from 27 of the state’s 70 district courts between 2007 and 2011, concluding, “There was no assurance that a person that a person receiving a state-sponsored attorney by claiming indigency was actually eligible for the service, making the $47.9 million spent on state-sponsored legal counsel at these 27 courts … unsupported and questionable.”

Auditors also found their own efforts to verify eligibility stymied, as many documents designed to verify eligibility — including affidavits —were missing.

Ballooning costs at the Committee for Public Counsel Services prompted an overhaul law in the most recent state budget intended in part to limit billable hours for private attorneys and to tighten indigency verification requirements. Under the law, those seeking publicly funded defense counsel must submit to an interview with a probation officer, who will then produce an “indigency intake report” and offer a recommendation about whether the applicant qualifies for a public defender.

In only two of 119 cases examined by auditors was “adequate documentation” provided to show officials performed required indigency assessments.

Auditor Suzanne Bump concluded that the routine failure of probation officials to verify indigency calls into question “the entire $82.3 million expended during fiscal year 2010” to aid indigent clients at all 70 district courts statewide.

5 comments

Left out of these findings is the large number of assessed legal fees that are uncollected with impunity. These are people who have been found to be able to pay the amount assessed based on the information they provided to the probation department. The courts are properly criticized for such incompetence.

Perhaps the burden should be placed on the defendant. Upon signing a form stating he is indigent (Affidavit or otherwise), a provisional appointment would be made. The defendant would then be informed by the court that the appointment would be revoked if he does not submit verification to a central office by a certain date. Provisional counsel would be motivated to spur the defendant along, so that the appointment would be made permanent. Appointed counsel would be paid an administrative fee for making sure the documentation was submitted properly. Perhaps the shortfall is not is not attributable to incompetence but to the harrowing lack of resources: A shrinking budget and dwindling staff. Retained revenue is not the perfect solution. Shifting responsibility is a better one.

The CPCS attorneys will be qualifying for indigency soon given the pathetic $40k starting pay and six figure student loan debt most of us have.

I am really sick of lip service being paid to “serving the poor” and the continually low salaries. Law schools, all of them charging more than $40,000 a year for tuition and raising it 8% every year. Please!

In the meantime, cops and fire fighters are making six figures easily with some OT. Something has to change. Even tolltakers can make $70,000 after a few years. Absurd. What is wring with this state?

The burden must be on the Defendant to verify indigency and to continue to do so when asked, until the case has reached its final conclusion. It is not uncommon for economic circumstances to change, particularly in termination of parental rights cases. The state cannot and should not be burdened with such costs when the Defendant in fact has resources. Nor, should the courts be blamed particularly when the court budgets are depleted and staff is stretched beyond reasonable expectations.

An interview with a probation officer, please give me a break. I had an interview w/po officer (not concerning indigency) and the rude individual chewed gum and blew bubbles in my face throughout interview. As interview progressed, I happened to mention to the po that two po officers that were connected to my situation were “politically connected”, he screamed at me and said that he took umbrage with my comment and threatened to throw me out and take my complaints elsewhere. He also brought this scenario to the attention of the Judge hearing my case. Remember Ted?